the social impact of cash transfers - international food policy

THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF CASH TRANSFERS

a study of the impact of cash transfers on social networks of Kenyan households participating in cash transfer programs

Presented by:

Phyllis Ressler

Principle researcher

Presented to:

Dr. Stuart Gillespie

RENEWAL/IFPRI

Regional Network on AIDS, Livelihoods and Food Security International Food Policy Research Institute January, 2008

Special thanks Carlos Alviar and Birgithe Lund-Henriksen UNICEF, Carren M. Ogoti,

Assistant Director Children’s Services, Ministry of Home Affairs, Rose District Office Children’s Officer, Lorraine R. Blank Policy evaluation and Research UNICEF/Cash Transfer and social protection, Claudia Hutspheth UNICEF, Sheri Aswani and Pinena Otieno research assistants,Mary Gitahi community health worker, Kengemi, Kathy Bowman MCC, Caroline Mboya community

health worker Homa Bay and Chris Kau community organizer, Homa Bay. This study was developed and supported by RENEWAL - the Regional Network on AIDS, Livelihoods and Food Security – coordinated by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). We gratefully acknowledge core support provided to RENEWAL by Irish Aid, the Swedish International Development Corporation Agency (SIDA), the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

The Social Impact of Cash Transfers

2

THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF CASH TRANSFERS

a study of the impact of cash transfers on social networks of Kenyan households participating in cash transfer programs

INTRODUCTION

This study explores one aspect of the broader issues of social networks. It is

specifically concerned with whether a minimal cash grant selectively provided to some

extremely poor households as part of a social safety network programme may impact

the social networks of receiving families. An underlying concern is that assistance to

the most vulnerable is constructive and does not undermine already fragile family

coping systems.

To explore the issue of social networks and cash transfers, a qualitative study was

carried out in Kenya in November 2007. Interviews were conducted with 6 recipient

families of the Kenya Government Cash Transfer Programme (CTP)—3 families in an

urban setting and 3 in a rural setting, This study attempted to answer the question, do

cash transfers enhance or disrupt informal social networks?

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Within the overarching livelihoods framework, the conceptual framework for the study

is based on the assumptions that social networks are part of the defining elements of

household well-being, that social networks of the most vulnerable families tend to be

very weak or fragile, and that a change in available resources (cash) could effect the

social network, positively or negatively. It is further assumed that “foodways”, human

behavior around food, offers a helpful window through which to understand social

networks and family well-being. The livelihoods framework is particularly valuable as

it includes consideration of human and social capital in understanding well-being, vulnerability and coping strategies of the household (Chambers, DFID 1999). As

suggested by Devereux, the “livelihoods approach” is particularly useful in reflecting

the complex realities faced by poor people in specific contexts (Devereux 2004).

Social networks No family survives completely alone. Social networks are fundamental to survival and

well-being, and at no time are social relations more critical than in situations of acute

distress. Social relations are often assumed to be positive, helpful, supportive of

families and individuals in need, but they can also be weak or unhelpful, negative,

even predatory. Curry argues that the most vulnerable families are those with few or

very weak social networks. Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler in their working paper,


3

Transformative Social Protection, (2004) state that poverty and vulnerability are not just about economic deprivation but are also about social deprivation. Understanding how

social networks contribute to both vulnerability and coping is essential to

understanding the needs of vulnerable families and how assistance can most

constructively be provided.

The exploration of informal social networks at the household level may be observed

through food sharing events and behaviours. Sharing food with a neighbor, the

presentation, the quantity and quality of the food shared all contribute to status and reciprocal exchange of resources. Participation in food events at the community level

creates status. It identifies membership in the group and establishes identity for the

household. Household participation in food sharing contributes to social capital and

access to resources. In many cultures sharing of food builds trust and community. The

lack of food and the resulting isolation from community participation destroys social

networks and contributes to vulnerability.

Social capital theory considers webs of relationships and social networks as

fundamental to the survival of the household. Bridging and bonding relationships

most often established at the household and community level, may be constructed

through foodways. The strength, weakness and value of these relationships will

contribute to maintaining household informal social networks.

The study of foodways at the household level does provide an understanding of

informal social networks and household well-being. Some research shows that it is less accurate as a mean to understand vulnerability of the household. Acquisition of

social capital, status and the desire for basic human dignity appear to take precedence

over foodways in nearly all but extreme situations of food distress. In this case

vulnerability may be hidden in order to maintain status and social capital.

Cash transfers

‘Don’t worry about what I feed my family. You just give me some money and I will take care of it. You don’t have to assume that I don’t know what to feed my family. The problem is that I happen to be poor.’ (Farmer, Bangladesh early 1980’s, Poitter, 2005).

Cash transfers, the provision of cash as an alternative to in-kind assistance, is

increasingly being used as a social protection method in situations of acute poverty, hunger and vulnerability. In Kenya, for example, cash transfer programmes have been

functioning for several years in support of people who lack access to food sufficient to

meet daily needs, and the large numbers of people impacted by the HIV and AIDS

crisis.

The operative assumption of cash transfer programming is, as stated by Harvey, in the

Humanitarian Policy Group publication, Cash Based Responses in Emergencies, 2007, that providing people in situations of distress with cash as a means of social protection is a


4

viable alternative form of assistance, can be targeted and distributed safely, and that

people use the money sensibly on basic essentials and on rebuilding livelihoods. Cash

based responses support the existing structure of the household, encourage

empowerment and provide flexibility for decision-making. Generally cash is seen as

having an improved influence on livelihood strategies and increases sense of well-

being and dignity for the household. Devereux states in, Cash Transfers in southern Africa: what we know and what we don’t know (wahenga news, rhvp, 2006), “there is convincing evidence that cash transfers have significant positive impacts on the lives

and livelihoods of the poor.” However, he also asserts that while cash transfers may

contribute to the well-being of the household, the impact of cash on local markets,

gender relations and social networks (emphasis added) of the household is not fully understood and therefore the total and long-term well-being of the household could

be in question.

‘Foodways’ ‘Food is life and everything can be studied through food’, (Counihan, 1995).

Understanding family ‘foodways’ provides a universal and insightful indicator of

household social networks and household well-being. Understanding what a family

eats, who they eat with, who they share and prepare food with and the family and

community rituals, reflect complex realities of a household and community.

The formal study of foodways as an anthropological field can contribute to the

livelihoods framework as it shares much of the same concepts and literature.

Foodways commonly includes five food related sub-fields: systems level food issues, such as political economy, trade, hunger and famine; health and nutrition issues; social

relations and food; household rituals, including sharing and preparing of food;

knowledge and power, including cultural, identity, and gender; and agriculture,

including access to land, global patterns of cultivation and production, biotechnology

and safe food.

Social networks and foodways The dynamics of social networks in situations of vulnerability are not well understood

and the specific cultural aspects are even more difficult to factor into a useful

understanding of vulnerability and social protection. Pottier, writing from the

perspective of anthropology, asserts that social dynamics of households must be explored if ‘lived experience’ is to be understood (Pottier 2005). Sabates-Wheeler and

Pelham, writing from a development perspective, observe that “…a large knowledge

gap (exists) concerning the extent and nature of the issue of social networks” (Sabates-

Wheeler, R. and Pelham, L. 2005). Lautze (2007) and Devereux (2002) writing

respectively about livelihoods and food insecurity echo this same conclusion.

‘Foodways’ human behavior around food, provides a simple method of analysis of the

social networks of the household. Food is a human need and the basic behaviors

around it are generally universal and predictable. The lack of these behaviors or the

adaptation of them may be an indicator of household vulnerability. This study


5

selected three food behaviors as its method of analysis these included, a review of who

eats together in the household, the household means to borrow food or share food and

household participation in community events.

THE STUDY AND METHODOLOGY This study was indertaken in the fall of 2007 and included a review of the literature

and field research in Kenya. Kenya was chosen for the study because of the on-going

cash transfer programming of the Kenyan Government and UNICEF, the willingness

of collaborators to facilitate the research, and the principle researchers’ previous work

in Kenya.

The study was designed as a perception study, supported by an interpretative

approach. The study researchers collected and interpreted the data from a series of

interviews with cash transfer beneficiaries, community health workers, research

assistants, neighbors, community services personnel and Government children’s services workers. The research approach purposed to include diversity in ethnicity,

location, age, gender and HIV status among interviewees. Research assistants were

chosen from the communities of the interviewees.

The study is based on interviews with six Kenyan families. Kangemi (slum) community

on the outskirts of Nairobi and Homa Bay, Nyanza Province were the target

communities primarily because of their HIV and AIDS prevalence rates and their

participation in the Cash Transfer Programme. Study participants were selected by the

District Children’s Office. All were beneficiaries of the Kenyan Government Cash

Transfer Program(CTP) at the time of the study. Criteria for participation in the CTP

required that a member of the household had been ill for at least 6 months, that the

head of the household had no job and that orphans and vulnerable children lived

within the household.

Participants in the study from the Kangemi community had received cash payments every six months for two years from 2005 as part of Phase I of the programme, and

were just beginning to receive payments of 3,000 shillings every two months as part of

an adjusted Phase II programme. In the Homa Bay community the cash transfer

programme had just begun. Study participants had received 3,000 shillings as a first payment three to four weeks before the interviews.


6

Participant Demographics

PARTICIPANTING HOUSEHOLDS

TIME IN CASH TRANSFER

PROGRAMME

CAREGIVERS

GENDER

CAREGIVERS

AGE

TOTAL NUMBER OF ORPHANS IN THE

HOUSEHOLD

Three urban

slum dwellers

Kangemi, Nairobi

1-2 years

Three female

Two over the

age of 60 and

one under the age of 60

Six

Three rural

farm/fishing communities

Homa Bay,

Nyanza Province

1-2 months

One male

Two female

Three over the

age of 60 One over the

age of 90

Thirteen

• The participants in the Kangemi community were of Kikuyu ethnicity and the

participants in Homa Bay were Luo.

• The sample included five women and 1 man as head of household.

• Five participants were over the age of 60 and one was 43 years old.

• No child headed households were among either Kangemi or Homa Bay study

participants. All participant households included orphans and vulnerable children.

• Four study participants had received one payment within the previous month and

two participants had received cash for two years prior to the interviews.

The interviews

All interviews except one were conducted in the homes of the participants. One was

conducted in a participant’s workplace at his request. In both Kangemi and Homa Bay

the principle researcher was accompanied by a community health worker known by the participants and a research assistant from the community who assisted by taking

notes and translating the conversations. The interviews were in English and Swahili.

The assistants were well known to participants which facilitated both access and ease

of discussion. In all situations the conversations were comfortable and it was clear that

the community health workers were at home with the beneficiaries and knew the

families well. In Homa Bay the community health worker was also a teacher in the

local school and knew the children of participants. In Kangemi the health worker was

a community elder and respected as an advocate for children in the community. The


7

research assistants in both cases were from the community but did not know the

beneficiaries before the interview sessions.

As a means of facilitating discussion about foodways and social networks, participants

were ask if they would allow photos to be taken of the persons who eat and share food

within the household. All families agreed. Poloroid photos were taken and arranged in

a ‘memory book’ with notes added about the identity of the people in the photos. The

memory book was then left with the family. Copies of the photos and documentation were kept by the researcher as part of the study with full agreement of the participants

(see Annex 1).

The questions The interview questions explored social networks through questions about eating

together, sharing and borrowing of food, survival techniques when there is no food,

daily food needs, preparation and access to food, and how the cash has affected family

food needs. The questions were formulated before the interviews (see Annex 2) and

responses were reviewed by the researcher and assistants following the interviews.

The analysis A interpretative approach was chosen to analyze the responses. Each interview was

transcribed and each response was grouped under main research topics or categories.

Limiations of the study While every effort was taken to ensure an accurate representation and to minimize bias

the following are factors that may have influenced the outcomes. The study had a small

number of participants which limits the generalizability of the findings. While all participants met the general criteria for the study, the selection of households was

made by the community district officer and criteria for selection was not clearly

defined; the use of culturally similar research assistants from the survey communities

contributed considerably to access and familiarity with household issues, while at the

same time may have unintentionally biased the results; a similar situation existed for

the principle researcher who had previous experience in Kenya; it is recognized that an

external researcher, an outsider, could influence the responses for various reasons

including assumed linkages with the donor.

OBSERVATIONS AND KEY FINDINGS To explore the impact of cash transfers on social networks, findings are drawn from

observations and interviews with study participants on the following issues:

community context, identification of who eats together, sharing and borrowing of food,

and participation in community functions. In addition, several observations are drawn

about the functioning of the cash transfer programme.

Context Whether urban or rural, or of Kikuyu or Luo ethnicity, all families in the study appeared to be among the most vulnerable in their communities. All study families


8

were single adult headed households, supporting from two to six orphaned children

and all were impacted by HIV and AIDS.

The living context for urban and rural families differed considerably. Participating

households from the Kangemi community live in a high density urban community

(slum), just outside of Nairobi, where residents are predominately Kikuyu. All

participating families lived in very simple one room wooden houses without electricity

or plumbing, attached side by side, and accessible by dirt paths. Elementary schools exist in the community and although basic education is free participation requires

resources for school uniforms, activities and books. While vegetables, meat and basic

food items were easily available, families in the study reported having such limited

resources that they could buy very little. All family members appeared healthly but the

community worker mentioned significant improvement in health status over the course

of the cash transfer programme.

Study participants in the community of Homa Bay, Nyanza Province live in a rural

setting on the edge of Lake Victoria outside of the city of Homa Bay. The region is

commonly known as “Luoland”, indicating its dominate Luo ethnic make-up.

Participants lived in very simple one room earthen structures without electricity or

plumbing, surrounded by agricultural land, with neighbors within easy walking

distance. Elementary schools exist in the area and, as in the urban areas, basic

education is free but family resources are required for full participation which is often

beyond the resources of the poorest families. Shops with basic food supplies exist near the houses of participants. Despite being an agriculture and fishing community,

and near shops with basic food supplies, study participants reportedly had limited

access to income generating opportunities, land for production or fish to meet family

food needs. The general health status of family members appeared weak; some

children in the household were HIV positive.

In both urban and rural settings, in both Luo and Kikuyu ethnic communities,

participating families were struggling to survive and among severely disadvantaged

households within the community.

“Before the cash we just slept hungry.” (Rachael Nyambura Mutonga, age 65 Kangemi)

The Cash Transfer Programme To understand participants’ experience with the cash transfer programme, the

following information was explored: length of time participant’s had received cash

through the cash transfer programme, participants’ understanding of the programme,

which person in the household collected the cash, and what the cash was spent for.

All participant households in the study had received cash payments through the cash

transfer programme. Participants in Kangemi had received cash transfers every 6

months for two years with no conditionalities as to use of the money. The cash

transfer programme was new to the study participants in Homa Bay community, who


9

among 96 selected households in the area, received their second payment

approximately 6 weeks before the researcher’s visit. The payment of 3,000 shillings was

distributed through the post office. No conditionalities were placed on the use of the

money by the cash transfer progamme. Participants were aware that conditionalities

maybe imposed at a later time requiring school attendance for all children living

within the houshold.

Understanding of the cash transfer programme differed between those with long and

short term experience in the programme. Participants in Kangemi appeared to

understand and have confidence in the reliability of the cash transfer programme, its

length, and the relationship between the programme, the government, and the donor.

In Homa Bay participants did not appear to understand the programme well; they

were uncertain why they had been selected, where the cash was coming from, and if

they could depend on regular payments. Even though they had received the first two

payments without problem, they expressed considerable distrust in the reliable of

future payments because of the possibility of corruption.

Mr. Kau, the community chairperson in Homa Bay, spoke on several occasions about how difficult it was to select the beneficiaries and to explain the process to them.

Several other Homa Bay residents who were not participants in the study, mentioned confusion as to how the people were selected and how one might go about getting on the list for the next distribution of cash. Participants in Homa Bay mentioned that they had not been told if they would receive the cash again, how much it would be or where it was coming from.

Study participants in both locations described the processes used for distribution of

the cash as successful and without problems. They understood who in the household

was designated to receive the cash payment and how they would handle the situation if

that person was not able to receive the cash.

With regard to expenditures, participants in both locations indicated that the cash

payment was most commonly used for school related expenses. While primary school tuition is free in Kenya, families face various additional education costs which if not

paid prevent children from participating. In addition pre-school and secondary school

have tuition fees.

Participants reported that the second major use of the cash transfer funds was for

household food. Participants indicated that the cash had allowed them to have more

than one meal a day, that they did not have to sleep hungry, that it was possible to

send food to school with the children, that they could have breakfast. Other uses of the

cash included rent and medicines.


10

Notably, two participants indicated that they kept the cash a secret from friends and

family. A full understanding of why families considered it necessary to keep it secret

was not clear.

Nobody knows about the cash given to her, it is a secret. (Aska Awino, age 97, Homa Bay)

“I keep the cash a secret. People will laugh at me because I need help.” (Irene Njoki, Kangemi)

In summary, participants indicated satisfaction and appreciation for being selected to

participate in the programme, and received the cash without problem. Participants

who had just begun the programme were concerned about the reliability of the payments. Two potentially problematic concerns were identified, that families in Homa

Bay did not understand why they were selected, and, secondly, reports of the difficulty

faced by community leaders in making the selection of participants for the programme.

Social networks To explore the strength of social networks of study participant households in the

Kangemi and Homa Bay communities, three food related behaviors were considered:

who eats together, borrowing and sharing of food and participation in community

events.

Eating together Primary household networks are explored in this study by considering who eats

together - ‘those who eat around a common pot’. The aim of the question was to

understand who is of a close enough relationship that even when food is scarce they

would be included in household food activities. In all cases the head of the household

reported eating with the children living in the house; in one case in Kangemi a sister

was included as an occasional visitor with whom they shared food; in one Homa Bay

household, several neighbor children were sometimes included; and one person in

Kangemi mentioned serving close friends. In summary, when resources are limited,

only care givers and children within the household are fed; occasionally, close family

members or friends. Eating behaviors in participating households did not reflect wide

social networks.

Borrowing and sharing

Participants were asked what actions they would take if they have no food in the

house, and, whether they are able to borrow food from friends and neighbors if

needed. Two children said that if no food existed in the house they would just “sleep

hungry”. Adult participants indicated that occasionally people did share but it

appeared to be exceptional; some participants indicated that they did not give or receive food from anyone. Interestingly, participants did not mention family members

as a source of assistance; the reasons remain unclear.


11

The responses concerning borrowing and sharing of food did not appear to

significantly differ by ethnicity or urban/rural location. However, longer-term

beneficiaries of the cash transfer programme were more likely to mention the

possibility of borrowing because of a greater confidence that they could re-pay.

Following are quotes that reflect participants’ experiences with borrowing and sharing.

“Food is shared among five children, she can not share food with neighbors and they did not help her ”. (Rachael Nyambura Mutonga, age 65 Kangemi) “Even when my wife was alive I do not remember people coming to share food.” (Elisha Ochola Bwana, age 77, Homa Bay) “No neighbor is concerned about another so she does not know who is desperate or in poverty.” (Irene Njoki, Kangemi)

Before the cash and when she was sick no one brought food to her. (Rahab Nyangina, age, 43, Kangemi) She gives food to the neighbors when they need it but they do not share with her.

(Aska Awino, age 97, Homa Bay) The image of the relaxed, inclusive food sharing behaviors of the African family with

neighbors and friends did not represent life experience of these families. Research

assistants commented that household isolation had increased with high levels of

poverty. Importantly, participants in the cash transfer programme for two years

reflected social networks that enabled them to borrow and share food.

“If there is no food we can borrow and pay after now that we have the cash.” (Zilpa Aludo, age 79, Homa Bay).

Participation in community events

Household participation in community events is an indicator of the web of relationships around the household and its subsequent social capital. Community

events in the life of an east African household commonly include burials, fund raising

events called ‘harambees’, school participation, and church functions, among others.

Such events revolve around social networks and typically are of a reciprocal nature

which require in-puts from the household and, in-turn, provide support.

The study explored participation by the households in community events. In the

Kangemi community, participants reported examples of their involvement in activities

that included burials, church, HIV and AIDS support groups. In the Homa Bay

community no examples of household participation in community events were

reported; the reasons are not fully understood. With regard to school participation, the

children in Kangemi households indicated engagement in school activities to the level

the caregiver could afford. School involvement of children in Homa Bay households

was less clear.


12

Following are several quotes reflecting participant responses with regard to

participation in community events:

“I can now give a few coins at church”. (Rachael Nyambura Mutonga, age 65, Kangemi) “I have joined a HIV support group”. (Rahab Nyangina, Kangemi)

She is able to pay the house rent, buy the school uniform and now they have breakfast, (with the cash). (Irene Njoki, age 67, Kangemi) Able to share food with her sister. (Rahab Nyangina, age, 43, Kangemi) She has received cash for two years and now is in a group with her fellow classmates and through this group when she has no food she can get cash from the group.” (Rahab Nyangina, age, 43, Kangemi) All children in the Kangemi households were in school it was less clear in Homa Bay. Child of Rahab, loves school because it will enable him to gain knowledge on how to read and write. He wants to be a pilot. (John Karanya, age 9, Kangemi) Shadrack was at home because his fellow students had gone to Lake Magadi and he could not afford the 1000 sh. that it cost to go along. He was disappointed because he really wanted to see how soda ash was mined. (Shadrack Mutonga, age 10, Kangemi)

In summary, while recognizing that a deeper understanding of community

participation requires more study, participation in community events appeared to be

stronger in the Kangemi community than in Homa Bay. This may be attributable to

many factors including that the Kangemi households had been beneficiaries of the

cash transfer programme for two years and the Homa Bay community had just received

their first payment. Culture could also be a factor but exploration of differences

between Luo /Kukuyu patterns of social interaction is beyond the scope of the study.

Additional observations • In the households interviewed, there appeared to be a mutually beneficial

relationship between the orphans and vulnerable children and their elderly

caregivers. In response to questions about the role of the children in the household,

participants suggested that assistance goes both ways; the older generation care for

orphans and vulnerable children and the children provide care for the older people.

“The older children do the cooking.” (Aska Awino, age 97, Homa Bay) “When ever I am sent for something by my grandmother I run.” (Shadrack Mutonga age 10, Kangemi)


13

The kids are her hope and future since her daughter disappeared. (Irene Njoki, age 67, Kangemi)

• Both beneficiaries and community members spoke freely about HIV and AIDS,

seemed very aware of the testing procedures, nutrition and dietary requirements for

people living with AIDS. Compared to the researcher’s experience in Kenya seven

years previously, the openness to discuss HIV and AIDS was noted as a significant

change. Older participants appeared more willing to talk about the impact of HIV,

where as the younger woman, who was HIV positive, found it hard to talk about the

fact that she was in need because of HIV and AIDS. Stigma within the family and

community appeared to be deeply embedded even though the issue of HIV and

AIDS treatment is openly discussed.

• Contrary to the commonly held understanding that HIV and AIDS testing is free,

participants affirmed that costs were involved. While the initial HIV test is free, the

CD4 test, important to complete the diagnoses and begin treatment, was not free

and was rarely available in small hospitals. For participants in both Kangemi and

Homa Bay, accessing this test required a bus ride and a charge for the test.

Differences of opinion also existed concerning the necessity of the test with some

arguing that treatment could be started without the test and others stating that

treatment should only be given on the basis of test results. CONCLUSIONS In considering the conclusions it should be noted that the observations are based on a

small sample and the results are indicative and deserve deeper exploration.

Participant households appeared to have very weak social networks, an indication of

their vulnerability. Cash payments appeared to strengthen the social networks and

social capital of participant households. Additional resources enabled recipients to

participate in community events, share food and borrow when in need because they

had a capacity to repay.

Observation of ‘foodways’ of families in acute economic distress indicate that food is

not commonly shared beyond intimate household members, and that borrowing to

meet food needs is not an option if repayment is difficult. The study of household

‘foodways’ proved helpful in understanding social networks and family well-being.

Cash payments appeared to make a significant contribution to household well-being.

“After the death of the children’s parents, the grandmother, Rachel Mutongah, took them to stay with her but she was sick and jobless. The cash transfer programme was going on in the community and UNICEF insisted the family to be selected as they were living without food and shelter was a problem as their landlord would chase them out of the house due to not paying the rent. After she has benefited from the cash, her life has changed a lot as she can take the children to school, they have food and can pay the


14

rent. Life has changed.” (Community health worker, Mary Gitahi commenting on the situation of Rachel Mutongah aged 65.)

Issues deserving further study • Strategies that contribute to strengthening very weak social networks of vulnerable

families. • Why some families chose to keep cash transfer payments a secret. Understanding

this issue would be useful to identify potential negative impacts of the cash transfer

programme on social networks.

• Better understanding of what information is essential for participant families to

know about the cash transfer programme.

• Understanding caregivers, both orphans and vulnerable children and the elderly.


15

ANNEX ONE

Rahab Nyangima (right) age 43 with her sister Mary Klanyiru and her son John age 9 . Kangemi, Nairobi Kenya

Racheal Nyambura Mutonga, aged 65 Shadrack aged 10 and Helen aged 13 Kangemi, Nairobi

Irene Njoki age 67 and Peter aged 13 with Sheri Aswani, research assistant, Kengemi, Nairobi Kenya

Kangemi Families


16

Elisha Ochola Bwana age 77 with the community health worker, Caroline Mboya, community chairman, Chris Kau, and research assistant, Pinena Otieno

Aska Awino age 97 and 6 grandchildren and 1 of 2 great grand children with the community health worker Caroline Mboya and the community chairman, Chris Kau.

Zilpa Aludo age 79, with 4 of her grandchildren and neighbour children

Homa Bay Families


17

ANNEX TWO Selected questions and responses from participants

HOMA BAY PARTICIPANT NAMES 1. Elisha Ochola Bwana 2. Aska Awino 3. Zilpa Aludo

AGE 1. 77 2. 97 3. 79

PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE HOUSE 1. 5 children one wife 2. 6 grand children and 2 great grand children 3. 4 grandchildren eat in their house.

AGES OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE HOUSE

PERSON WHO COLLECTS THE CASH 1. He collects the cash or his son victor 3. She herself fetches the money

HOW LONG SHE HAS BEEN A BENEFICIARY 1. Only one payment 3000 sh 2. One month

3. One month

PURCHASES WITH THE CASH 1. All the money was given to the school 2. The first payment brought food maize vegetables 3. The cash has helped to buy food and clothing for her children she also

bought buckets and basins.


18

FAVORITE FOODS 1. Favorite foods, meat and cabbage tea. 2. The children like fish beans and chipati 3. They eat rice, cabbage, onions, maize and beans small fish (the very

nutritios one)??

WHO COOKS 2. The elder grandchildren cook

3. She does the cooking

WHO DO THEY SHARE FOOD WITH 1. No neighbors came and shared food with him. Even when my wife was

alive I don’t remember people coming to share food. 2. She gives food to the neighbors but they do not share with her.

WHO HELPS WHEN THEY ARE IN EXTREME DISTRESS 2. Has plots built by the son so she gets the little money from the house on the plot. (very poor quality) She thanks God for the cash but it is little. Nobody is helping her but she can’t leave the children.

RENT

ETHNICITY 1. Luo 2. Luo 3. Luo

IF THERE WAS NOTHING TO EAT IN THE HOUSE 1. When there is nothing to eat in the house what do you do? The watch

repair business has always helped. 2. When there is no food in the house at all….god helps me but I have not

experienced 3. If she does not have food she can borrow and pay afterwards.

PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY EVENTS 3. She does not belong to any groups

ISSUES AROUND THE CASH 1. His neighbors know about the cash. It is a good programme but the

amount is too small. 2. Nobody knows about the cash given to her.


19

Selected questions and responses from participants

KANGEMI NAME 1. Racheal Nyambura Mutonga 2. Irene Nyoki 3. Rahab Nyangima

AGE 1. 65 Years of age 2. 64 years 3. 43

PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE HOUSE 1. 5 grandchildren live with her 2. 2 children

3. She feeds 2 kids one is 26 the other one is 18 and the other 9 years

AGES OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE HOUSE 1. Ages of children 14, 13, 12, 11,10 all are in school.

2. 5 and 13 She would really like to get medication for the kids. She has been taking care of the kids since childhood because her daughter left.

3. 26, 18 and 9

PERSON WHO COLLECTS THE CASH 1. Rachel the grandmother 2. The cash is a secret 3. She is the one who receives the cash. She is a single mother

HOW LONG SHE HAS BEEN A BENEFICIARY 1. 2 years 2. New beneficiary in Phase 2

Has rec. only one payment

3. She is an old beneficiary (Phase one and two) of UNICEF She was chosen because lived in a small house and she was very sick.


20

PURCHASES WITH THE CASH 1. They used to sleep on the floor but since she has gotten the money she

was able to buy beddings, uniforms books food and two beds. They used to sleep hungry once the landlord bared the door because she was not able to pay the rent.

1. The cash has really helped her she can buy more and provide breakfast f or the kids.

2. The cash is a secret. She has not told anyone. 2. Before the cash she had no breakfast…only one meal a day. 2. School fees are still a problem. Secondary school is not free….25,000 to

40,000. 3. It really helps her in paying the rent. School fees and food stuff

especially basic needs. 3. Through the cash she has been able to take her son for a driving course.

SCHOOL 1. The kids really love school and really do great.

FAVORITE FOODS 1. ugali, rice, mixture of maize and beans 2. Her favorite foods are bananas and ugali and now she can buy bananas.

she eats, beans vegetables and carbohydrates. 3. The favorite dish is Gutheri, ugali and vegetables (green) sukuma and

spinach.

WHO COOKS 1. Grandmother 2. She is the one who does the cooking. She would really like to get more

food

WHO DO THEY SHARE FOOD WITH 1. She only shares food with the 5 kids. She only gives some few coins to

the church. 2. She shares the food with the kids and friends who always pay visits to

them. Now she has more she does have friends who come by and she shares food with them.

3. She only shares the food with the kids. Nobody helped her with cash

before UNICEF started helping her. She involves herself only with people in the AIDS support group.


21

WHO HELPS WHEN THEY ARE IN EXTREME DISTRESS 1. The neighbors are the only people who helped. She does not share food.

No food was given by the church neighbors gave her food. Phase 1 and 2. 2. No neighbor is concerned about another so he does not know who or

anyone who is desperate in poverty. She has been living in Kangemi

since she was a lady (the grandmother). She has been living in her house for five years.

3. She is in a group with her fellow classmates and through this group when she has nothing she would get cash from the class mates group. When the neighbors have nothing she always gives them.

RENT 1. rent is between 1,000 and 2’000 a month in Kangemi. One small room

house in a small street in Kangemi, She had several chairs, one table and

a giko.

ETHNICITY 1. she is Kikuyu.

2. She comes from Nairobi. 3. She has been born in Kangemi....

IF THERE WAS NOTHING TO EAT IN THE HOUSE 1. …..If they had nothing to et and had to cook for the kids she would

borrow. She appreciates the work of the community health worker because she has really been helpful. If the community health worker is not around she always asks the neighbors for food stuffs. It is a two-way

traffic if the neighbor doesn’t have they borrow form this grandmother. 2. when there is nothing to eat they usually sleep hungry . 3. If they really had nothing to eat she would lend on credit and pay later.

PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY EVENTS

1. The only community event she participates in is burials.

ISSUES AROUND THE CASH 2. Her friendships did not change with the cash because it is a secret! She

does not tell because people will laugh at her because she needs help. 3. The issue of cash is not a secret, her friends know and her kids. Her

fellow beneficiaries who were with her were curious because she was chosen.


22

SUPPORTING LITERATURE

Adato, M. and Gillespie, S. (2005) ‘State and Community in Promoting Resilience: Rethinking Social Protection for Adults and Children in the Context of HIV and AIDS A New Research

Agenda’,IFPRI, Washington, DC.

Astone, N.M., Nathanson, C.A., Schoen, R., Young, K.K. (1999) ‘Family Demography, Social

Theory, and Investment in Social Capital’, Population and Development Review, Vol. 25, No. 1.

(Mar.,1999) pp. 1-31.

Befu, H. (1977) ‘Social Exchange’, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 6. pp. 255-281.

Bennett, J. W. (1946) ‘An Interpretation of the Scope and Implications of Social Scientific

Research in Human Substance’, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 48, No. 4, Part 1.

(Oct.-Dec.,1946), pp. 553-573.

Bennett, J.W. (1943) ‘Food and Social Status in a Rural Society’,American Sociological Review,

Vol. 8, No. 5. (Oct., 1943), pp. 561-569.

Bond, V. ( 2005) ‘Stigma When There is no Other Option: Understanding How Poverty Fuels

Discrimination Toward People Living with HIV in Zambia’, IFPRI, Washington, DC.

Browning, C.R., Dietz, R., Feinberg, S.L., (2000), ‘Negative Social Capital and Urban Crime: A

Negotiated Coexistence Perspective’, URAI Working Paper No. 00-07.

Camp, C. (1982) ‘Foodways in Everyday Life’, American Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 3. (1982), pp. 278-

289.

Chambers, R., Conway, G. (1992), ‘Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st

century’, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton.

Counihan, C. (1999) The Anthropology of Food and Body Gender, Meaning, and Power, Routledge,

New York and London.

Counihan, C., Van Esterik, P. Eds. (1997) Food and Culture a Reader, Routledge, New York and

London.

Crehan, K. (2002) Gramsci, Culture and Anthropology, Pluto Press, London, Sterling Virginia.

Cussler, M. and De Give, M. L. ( 1952) ‘Twixt the Cup and the Lip’, Twayne Publishers, New

York pp. 262.

De Boeck, F. (1994) ‘When Hunger Goes Around the Land: Hunger and Food Among the

Aluund of Zaire’, Man, New Series, Vol. 29, No. 2. (Jun.,1994), pp. 257-282.

Devereux, S. (2001) ‘Sen’s Entitlement Approach: Critiques and Counter-critiques’, Oxford Development Studies, Vol. 29, No. 3.


23

Devereux, S., Sabates-Wheeler, R. (2004) ‘Transformative Social Protection’, ODI, Sussex.

DeWalt, K. M. (1986) ‘Food in the Social Order: Studies of Food and Festivities in Three

American Communities’ by Mary Douglas, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 88, No. 3. (Sep., 1986), pp. 737-739.

DFID (Department for International Development) (1999) London Dirks, R., Armelagos,G.J., Bishop, C.A., Brady, I. A., Brun,T., Copans, J.,

Doherty,V.S., Fraková, Greene, Jelliffe, D.B., Patrice, E.G., Jelliffe,D., Kayongo-Male, Paque,C., Schusky, E. L., Brooke, T, D,T. (1980) ‘Social Responses During Severe Food

Shortages and Famine [and Comments and Reply]’, Current Anthropology, Vol. 21, No. 1. (Feb.

1980), pp. 21-44.

Douglas, M., ‘Deciphering a Meal’, Counihan (1997) (eds).

Douglas, M. (1992) ‘Why Do People Want Goods?’ Shaun Hargreaves and Agus Ross, (eds),

Understanding the Enterprise Culture, Edinburgh University Press, 19-31.

Eden Foundation (2006) ‘When Endemic Malnutrition is Labeled as Famine’, HPG, Sweden.

Escobar, A. (1991) ‘Anthropology and the Development Encounter: The Making and Marketing

of Development Anthropology’, American Ethnologist, Vol. 18, No. 4. (Nov., 1991), pp. 658-682.

Facing the Crisis Together, The Government of Kenya’s Cash Transfer Programme for

Orphans and Vulnerable Children (Draft Copy), (March,2007).

Fitchen, J. M. (1997) ‘Hunger, Malnutrition and Poverty in the Contemporary United States

some observations on their social and cultural context’, Counihan, C. (1997) Food and Culture a Reader, Routledge, new York and London.

Firth, R. (1938) Human Types, An Introduction to Social Anthropology, Thomas Nelson and Sons

LTD.

Gates, M. (1996) ‘Review: Anthropology and the Development Encounter Reviewed

Work(s):Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. by Arturo Escobar, An Anthropological Critique of Development: The Growth of Ignorance’. by

Mark Hobart, Current Anthropology, Vol. 37, No. 3. (Jun.,1996), pp. 575-577. Granovetter, M. (1973). ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 78p. 1360-

1380.

Greene, L. S. (1979) ‘Malnutrition, Behavior, and Social Organization’, reviewed by Stinson, S.,

American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 81, No. 4. (Dec.,1979), pp. 971-972.

Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books, New York

Gupta, A. and Ferguson, J. (2001) Culture Power Place, Explorations in Critical Anthropology,

Duke University Press, Durham and London.


24

Harris, M, Ross, E. B., (1898) reviewed by Quandt, S. A., American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol.91, No. 1. (Mar., 1989), pp. 251-252.

Harvey, P. (2007) Cash-based Responses in Emergencies, Report 24, HPG and ODI, UK.

Hearns, A. and Deeny, P. (2007). ‘The Value of Support for Aid Workers in Complex

Emergencies: A Phenomenological Study’,Disaster Management and Response Jaspers, S., Harvey, P., Hudspeth, C., Rumble, L., Christensen, D. (2007) ‘A Review of

UNICEF’s Role in Cash Transfers to Emergency Affected Populations Summary Working

Paper’, UNICEF.

Kishigami, N. (2004) ‘Contemporary Inuit Food Sharing: A Case Study from Akulivik, PQ

Canada’, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, Japan.

Kluckhohn, C. (1942) ‘Myths and Rituals: A General Theory’, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 35, No. 1. (Jan., 1942), pp. 45-79. perspectives.

Kuper, A, (1973) Anthropology and Anthropologists, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group,

London and New York.

Lappe, F.M. and Collins, J. ‘Beyond the Myths of Hunger’, in Food and Culture a Reader,

Counihan. C. (1997), Routledge, New York and London.

Lautze, S. A., Raven-Roberts, A. (2006) ‘Violence and Complex Humanitarian Emergencies:

Implications for Livelihoods Models’, Disasters, 30(4): 383-401, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Levy, S., Barahona, C., Chinsinga, B. (2004) ‘Food Security, Social Protection, Growth and

Poverty Reduction Synergies: The Starter Pack Programme in Malawi’,Number 95, Malawi.

Little, P.D., Painter, M. (1995) ‘Discourse, Politics, and the Development Process: Reflections

on Escobar's "Anthropology and the Development Encounter",American Ethnologist, Vol. 22,

No. 3. (Aug., 1995), pp. 602-609.

Livelihoods Framework, Chambers, DFID, (accessed on the Internet 2007)

http://www.livelihoods.org/info/guidance_sheets_pdfs/section2.pdf

Lokuruka, M.N.I. (2006) ‘Meat is the Meal and Status is by Meat: Recognition of Rank, Wealth

and Respect Through Meat in Turkana Culture’, Food and Foodways, Routledge.

Lombardi, J. R. (1975) ‘Reciprocity and Survival’, Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Oct.,

1975), pp. 245-254.

Malinowski, B. (1945) ed. Kaberry, P.M., The Dynamics of Culture Change an Inquiry into Race Relations in Africa, Yale University Press, New Haven, London, Humphrey Milford.

McGuire, G.M. (2000) Gender, Race, and Informal Networks: A Study of Network Inclusion, Exclusion, and Resources,Oxford University Press.


25

Mead, M. ‘The Changing Significance of Food’, in Counihan, C. (1997) Food and Culture a

Reader, Routledge, New York and London.

Mehmet, K. A., Mehmet, O. ‘Family in War and Conflict: Using Social Conflict for Survival in

War Torn Cyprus’, Journal of Comparative Studies, pp. 303.

Meigs, A., ‘Food as Cultural Construction’, in Counihan, C. (1997) Food and Culture a Reader,

Routledge, New York and London.

Messer, E. ‘10 Seasonally in Food Systems: An anthropological perspective on household food

security’.

Mintz, S., DuBois, C. M (2002) ‘The Anthropology of Food and Eating’, Annual Review of Anthropology.

Nussel, J. (2006) ‘Heating up the Sources: Using Community Cookbooks in Historical Inquiry’,

History Compass, Vol. 4 Issue, 5 pp. 956-961.

Office for National Statistics, Canada, ( 2003). Access the internet, 2007.

Ogoye-Ndegwa, C., Aagaard-Hansen, J. (2006) ‘Famines and Famished Bodies in a Food Deficit Locality among the Luo of Kenya’, Food and Foodways, Routledge.

Ortner, S. B. (1997) ‘The Fate of "Culture": Geertz and Beyond’, Representations, No. 59, Special Issue: (Summer, 997), pp. 1-13. PHRED, (2007) ‘Is There a Relationship Between Food

Insecurity and Overweight/Obesity’?, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term

Care and Hamilton Public Health Services PHRED Program.

Potapchuk, W., Crocker, J., Schechter, W. (1997) ‘Building Community with Social Capital:

Chits and Chums or Chats with Change.’ National Civic Review, Jossy-Bass Inc., San Francisco,

USA.

Pottier, J. Anthropology of Food, The Social Dynamics of Food Security,

Polity press, 2005.

Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community, New York: Simon and Schuster: 288-290.

Quarantelli, E. L., Dynes, R. R. (1977) ‘Response to Social Crisis and Disaster’, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 3 pp. 23-49.

Riessman, C. K. (1993) ‘Narrative Analysis: Qualitative Research Methods’, Series 30. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, London, New Delhi.

Sabates-Wheeler, R. and Pelham, L. (2005) ‘A Briefing Paper for UNICEF on the Social Protection Content of National Plans of Action for Orphans and Vulnerable Children’.

Schirch, L. (2005) Ritual and Symbol in Peacebuilding, Kumarian Press, Inc., USA.


26

Sewell W. Jr. (1997) ‘Cultural Systems, and History: From Synchrony to Transformation’,

Representations, No. 59, Special Issue: The Fate of "Culture": Geertz and Beyond. (Summer,1997), pp. 35-55.

Shack, W. A., ‘Hunger, Anxiety and Ritual, Deprivation and Spirit Possession among the Gurage of Ethiopia’. in Counihan, C. (1997) Food and Culture a Reader, Routledge, New York

and London.

Singer, H.W. (1982) review of Sen, A, ‘Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and

Deprivation’, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 58, No. 2.

(Spring, 1982), pp. 335-336.

Shipton, P. (1990) ‘African Famines and Food Security: Anthropological Perspectives’, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 19. (1990), pp. 353-394.

Shipton, P., ‘Anthropological Perspectives, Harvard Institute for International Development,

and Department of Anthropology,Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Shuman, A. (2000) ‘Food Gifts: Ritual Exchange and the Production of Excess Meaning’,

The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 113, No. 450, Holidays, Ritual, Festival, Celebration, and

Public Display. pp. 495-508.

Sorokin, P.A. (1976) reviewed by Cussler, M., ‘Hunger as a factor in Human Affairs’, Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 5, No. 4. (Jul., 1976), pp. 524-525.

Strauss, C.L.,’ The Culinary Triangle’, in Counihan, C. (1997) Food and Culture a Reader,

Routledge, New York and London.

Strauss, C. L. (1964) The Raw and the Cooked, Introduction to a Science of Mythology, Vol.1 Harper

and Row, New York.

Turner, V. (1980) Social Dramas and Stories about Them, Critical Inquiry, Vol. 7, No. 1, On

Narrative. (Autumn, 1980), pp. 141-168.

Turner, V. (1975) ‘Symbolic Studies’, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 4. (1975), pp. 145-161.

University of Michigan, (2007), ‘Social Networks Help People Recover from Disasters’.

Weismantel, M.J., reviewed by McDowell, J.H. (1992) ‘Food, Gender and Poverty in the Ecuadorian Andes’, American Ethnologist, Vol. 19, No. 2. (May, 1992), pp. 402-403.

WFP, (internet access, 2007) http://www.wfp.org.

White, S. and Ellison, M. (2006) WeD Working Paper 23, Wellbeing, Livelihoods, and Resources in Social Practice.

Wood, R. C. ( 1997) ‘The Sociology of the Meal’, reviewed by Counihan, C.M., American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No.2 (Jun., 1997), pp. 413-414.

Young, H., Jaspers, S., Brown, R., Frize, J., Khogali, H,(2001) HPN Network Paper, 36.

the social impact of cash transfers - international food policy

Documents